The Challenge of the Golden Rule

The Golden Rule is something “everyone” knows but hardly anyone follows to a significant degree. In this post, I want to think with you about the meaning and practice (or lack thereof) of the Golden Rule and the challenge it presents in one concrete problem facing USAmerican society today. 

The Golden Rule in Christianity and Other Religions

“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” (Matt. 7:12), words of Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount, have been referred to as the Golden Rule since the 17^th century. Similar words, though, were said/written in other religious traditions before and after Jesus.*¹

Of special interest is the statement of Hillel, the esteemed Jewish rabbi who died about 10 years after Jesus’ birth. He reportedly said, “What is hateful to yourself, do to no other.”

This negative version of the Golden Rule, sometimes called the Silver Rule, is often expressed, “What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others.” Similar words are found in ancient Hindu and Buddhist texts, as seen in this image: 

It is interesting that the words of the five major religions seen here, the Muslim words are closest to the words of Jesus. One source states, “According to Anas ibn Mālik (d. 712), the Prophet [Mohammed] said: “None of you has faith until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself’.”

What about the Platinum Rule?

Some people are critical of the Golden Rule and say it should be replaced by what they call the Platinum Rule: “Treat others the way they would like to be treated.” This shifts the focus from what you want to what others want.

Jennifer Furlong, a motivational speaker and advocate for personal growth gave a TEDx talk titled “The Golden Rule Not so Much, Platinum Rule Rocks.” In that talk, she declares that the Golden Rule is terrible relationship advice and urges people to use the Platinum Rule instead. *²

There is certainly merit in this emphasis on the (poorly named?) Platinum Rule. Thinking about what others want or need and seeking to respond to those wants/needs is a worthy challenge for us all. But so many people don’t even come close to meeting the challenge of the Golden Rule.

Let me illustrate this with one contemporary issue.  

The Golden Rule and the Current Immigration Crisis

The number of immigrants crossing the southern border of the U.S. is one of the most contentious issues facing our nation at present, and it raises a lot of red flags for many. A shutdown of the government almost happened because of the strong disagreement between the pro- and anti-immigration legislators.

Further, before long the Republican House of Representatives will likely impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Republicans have repeatedly accused Mayorkas of failing to enforce the nation's laws as a record number of migrants arrived at, and crossed, the U.S.-Mexico border.

The clamor to “close the border” is actively supported by many conservative White evangelicals. But how does one obey the Golden Rule and turn away people, including families, fleeing violence and starvation?

One tragic example is that of a Mexican woman and two of her children who drowned last week seeking to cross the Rio Grande at Eagle Pass, Texas. Mexican authorities requested help from the U.S. Border Patrol, but they were denied access to the area by the Texas State Police and National Guard.

So, if you were there in the place of that mother, what would you want others to do to/for you? Of course, you would want them to do all they could to rescue you and your children.

How could people claim to follow the Golden Rule but do nothing to help those seeking refuge from violence and extreme economic hardship?

Some have claimed that we are human beings, not human doings. That may be true, but be sure to note that the first word of the Golden Rule is do.

_____

*¹ The Wikipedia article gives a helpful summary of the variety of ways the Golden Rule has been expressed by numerous religious leaders and secular scholars. 

*² That 2017 talk was loaded on YouTube, and to date it has had around 12,000 views. It is a bit ironic, though, that in contrast to what once was usually the case, gold is now worth considerably more than platinum. Even at the end of 2017 an ounce of gold was worth $1,300 but an ounce of platinum was worth only $940.

*³ See this article posted on January 16. Although it is about a bridge some 300 miles southeast of Eagle Pass, I also suggest you read this Jan. 17 article titled “Fellowship Southwest joins bridge walk to draw attention to broken asylum system.”

P.S.: Here is a 1967 Wizard of Id comic strip by Johnny Hart: 

Is Becoming Inclusive Even Remotely Possible?

After posting my previous blog article, I expected to hear from one or more people saying that the idea of doing away with us/them divisions was fuzzy idealism and not at all possible.

Alas, no one made such comments, so I have to do it myself! How can we possibly become completely inclusive in October, the peak of the baseball season? Right now it is us (Go Royals!) against them (the Blue Jays, which is not even a U.S. team, for Pete’s sake).

Competitive sports is based on a strong us/them dichotomy. True, there is a type of volleyball in which rotation occurs from one side to the other. While that can still be fun to play, I’m afraid it is never going to be included in the Olympic Games.

Several days ago I saw the following image on Facebook:

This is a nice thought—but, no, I can’t really imagine it. There is so little love and respect for so many people even in our own neighborhoods and cities I, can’t imagine most of us are going to be able in any meaningful way to love and respect the more than 7,000,000,000 people in the world.

Here in Tucson where June and I are visiting for several weeks, there are “We Stand with Rosa” signs in many yards I have driven past, including in the yard next to my daughter’s place (pictured).

Rosa Robles is a 41 year old Mexican woman who was originally detained in 2010 after a routine traffic stop revealed she was in the country illegally. In August 2014 she moved into a Presbyterian church here in Tucson for sanctuary after receiving an order of deportation.

Rosa said she came to the U.S. in 1999 to give her kids a better life. They were born in Mexico, but qualify for relief by the President’s executive action. She admits that she did break the law by entering the country illegally—but thinks those with families and clean records should be spared deportation.

Those who are standing with Rosa in Tucson are loving and respecting her and her family. But Rosa is just one out of millions of “illegals” in this country—and many voices cry out for “them” to be deported—and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is trying to do its job by deporting Rosa.

There is widespread clamor for securing the borders—not just against terrorists and criminals, but against all who seek to come into this country without going through the lengthy, and expensive, legal immigration process.

In a world where there is only “us” and no “thems,” there would be no borders, national or otherwise. But, sadly, that is not possible in today’s world. Most of the people in this country would fight rather than have completely open borders.

But what if we all loved and respected each another, if we loved others as we love ourselves, if we practiced the Golden Rule?

In his Civilization and Its Discontents (1930) Freud wrote that the commandment “Love thy neighbour as thyself is impossible to fulfill.” He is probably correct.

Writing five years later in Interpretation of Christian Ethics, Reinhold Niebuhr cites Freud’s words in “The Relevance of an Impossible Ethical Ideal,” the fourth chapter. Then he goes on to insist that “the law of love is an impossible possibility.”

Yes, becoming completely inclusive is, no doubt, not even remotely possible. But becoming more and more inclusive is a real possibility—and a constant challenge for all who seek to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Without Papers

Painting by John Lautermilch

On this Friday before Christmas, I am writing first about an event that took place sometime after that first Christmas when Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

According to Matthew 2:14, having been warned of King Herod’s evil intentions, Joseph took the child Jesus and his mother Mary and fled to Egypt. As far as we know, the three of them entered Egypt “without papers.” That is, they were undocumented immigrants, although later—and we don’t know how much later, maybe a year or two—they went back to Palestine.

Similarly, many USAmericans who read this have ancestors who for various, but mostly economic, reasons came to this country without immigration papers. The first restrictive federal immigration law was not passed until 1875—and it was enacted to prohibit the entry of immigrants considered “undesirable.”

Specifically, that 1875 immigration law was passed to “end the danger of cheap Chinese labor and immoral Chinese women.” But, in general, immigrants from around the world were welcomed into the U.S., no papers necessary.

In 1883 as a part of the fund-raising campaign for the Statue of Liberty, American poet Emma Lazarus wrote “The New Colossus.” Then in 1903 the following well-known words from that poem were inscribed on a plaque that is now in the museum in the base of the Statue:

. . . . Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Later, other immigration bills were enacted to keep “undesirables” out of the country, but the first law to restrict the number of new immigrants was not passed until 1921. Mexican immigration was restricted for the first time by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

But now there is a major national problem over “undocumented immigrants” in the U.S. There are nearly 12 million of them, with about 3/4 being from Mexico and other Latin American countries. Some people think that most, if not all, of those here without papers ought to be deported. But such people are in the minority.

The majority of U.S. citizens, according to recent polls, think that there should be immigration reform that includes a road to citizenship for those now here without papers. Moreover, in June of this year the U.S. Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill by a vote of 68-32.

That bill (S.744) is the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.” But the House has failed to act on it. In spite of widespread support by Republicans as well as Democrats, the bill has not yet been brought up for a vote. Once again we see bad results from the “tyranny of the minority.”

In recent weeks there has been an ongoing fast on the National Mall by those seeking to get the House to pass the immigration bill. The slogan of that group is Fast for Families, and people across the country, including some members of the House as well as at least one regular reader of this blog, have gone on short fasts in solidarity with the D.C. fasters. But to no avail—so far.

Since the bipartisan budget bill was passed this week, many are now hopeful that the immigration bill will be passed in January. For the sake of the millions of people, especially the many children, who are living in this country with fear, uncertainty, and often exploitation, let’s hope and pray that those here “without papers” may soon be on the path to becoming productive citizens.

What are Republicans Thinking?

This article is not about Republicans in general. Rather it is particularly about the Republicans in the U.S. Congress.

The record of these Republican Congresspersons over the last three years has been quite consistent: they have almost unanimously opposed nearly everything the President has proposed.

There has always been political division in the country, but perhaps there has never been as much polarity as there is now.

In the Senate, the Democrats became so frustrated last week that they even used the “nuclear option” and changed the rules for approving nominations for executive and judicial positions.

That was not necessarily a good thing. But neither is the ceaseless obstructionism that led to that extreme, and possibly unwise, decision.

In particular, I am raising the question about what are Republican lawmakers thinking in their ongoing, obdurate opposition to positions that the large majority of U.S. citizens, including Republicans, are for.

Consider four such issues: (1) legislation to outlaw hiring/firing discrimination against gays/lesbians, (2) immigration reform, (3) background checks for those who want to purchase guns, and (4) raising the minimum wage.

(1) On Nov. 7, the Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) by a vote of 64-32. (One of the negative votes was by Republican Senator Blunt of Mo.) But at this point, Rep. Boehner has refused to bring the bill up for a vote in the Republican dominated House.

A recent Gallup poll found that nationwide ENDA is supported by 63% of the citizens nationwide, with only 31% opposing it. Even among Republicans, there were 58% in favor and only 36% in opposition.

(2) Back in June, the Senate passed an immigration bill by a 68-32. (The negative votes were all by Republicans, including Senator Blunt.)

But it has yet to be approved by the House, even though earlier this year a CNN poll showed that 84% of the public (78% of the Republicans) backs a program that would allow undocumented workers to stay in the United States and apply for citizenship if they have been in the country for several years, have a job, and pay back taxes.

(3) The tragic school shootings at Sandy Hook were nearly a year ago. There were outcries across the nation for more stringent gun control. In April the Senate bill to extend background checks received 54 votes—but was killed by a Republican filibuster.

A subsequent Gallup poll then indicated that 65% of Americans thought that Senate bill should have passed; only 29% thought it shouldn’t have.

(4) Back in March, Senator Harkin (D-IA) proposed the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, calling for an increase from the current $7.25 to $10.10. This month after passing ENDA, the Senate began to consider Sen. Harkin’s bill along with other possibilities.

This month, a Gallup poll indicated that U.S. citizens favor raising the minimum wage to at least $9.00 by a margin of 76% to 22% (and 58% to 39% among Republicans). But the Senate has yet to come up with anything that they think will be able to clear an expected Republican filibuster.

So here are four hot issues with overwhelming public support for change but which are opposed by Republicans in Congress—which leads again to my question: What can they be thinking?

And how can they claim to be representing the citizens of the country when they keep opposing what a large majority of the citizens are for?

Of course another pertinent question is this: Why do people keep electing lawmakers who do not vote according to the desires of the majority of the American people?

The Land of the Free

It was Francis Scott Key, as most of you know, who penned the words to “The Star Spangled Banner,” our national anthem. What you may not know is that it was eighty years ago this week, on March 3, 1931, that Key’s composition officially became the national anthem.

Key (1779-1843) was a lawyer and amateur poet, and his poem written in 1814 was first titled “The Defence of Fort McHenry.” (It is interesting to note that the British spelling of defense was still used.)

During the War of 1812, which did not end until February 1815, Key watched the bombarding of the American forces at Fort McHenry during the Battle of Baltimore. The next morning, September 14, 1814, Key was able to see a large American flag still flying above the besieged fort. That was his inspiration for the poem. (It is also interesting to note that Key’s poem was set to the tune of a British drinking song, which was popular in the United States at the time.)

It was on March 3, 1931, then, that “The Star-Spangled Banner,” Key’s re-named poem, was made the national anthem by a congressional resolution and subsequently signed by President Herbert Hoover.

Although we don’t usually hear more than the first verse of the national anthem, all four verses end with the words about the flag flying “O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Those are words that most Americans like, and for good reason.

It recently dawned on me, however, that at the time Key wrote those words, there was a large segment of the people living in the United States who were not free. In 1810 there were more than one million (!) slaves in the United States and more than 110,000 in Maryland where Key wrote his famous words about the “land of the free.”

At that time in American history, women did not have complete political freedom either, as they did not have the right to vote. And even though Key extolled the “land of the free” it was more than a century later before women were free to vote.

Of course, by 1931, thankfully, slavery had become a thing of the past (even though racism was still deeply embedded in the country) and women had gained the right to vote (a whole 10½ years earlier).

But is this the land of the free now? Certainly, for most of us. But still there are problems.

The well-known words on the Statue of Liberty contain this appealing invitation, “Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Probably most of those who came to this country from Europe, as did the ancestors of many of us, came for economic freedom rather than for political or religious freedom. That was the case for the Neigers and the Abplanalps from Switzerland, my ancestors who most recently came to this country.

But now within our society there is considerable animosity toward people who recently came to this country for economic reasons, especially, of course, toward those who came "without papers." But that animosity extends even to their children who had no choice in the matter, as seen in the defeat of the DREAM act in the U.S. Senate last December. 

The next time we sing about the land of the free, perhaps that should help us to be more sympathetic towards others who now want to enjoy the same freedom that so many of our ancestors came to this country to have.